Konfiguratorius - PC builder, live part prices and compatibility

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it uses live shop prices, confirms current availability, and returns compatibility verdicts and buy links, implying real-time data fetching without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence packs the core purpose, scope, and return contents efficiently. The country list is somewhat long and overlaps with the market enum, but it earns its place by clarifying exactly where live prices are sourced.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what the agent will receive: every part, price, compatibility verdict, FPS estimates, and a buy link. Combined with full schema parameter coverage and read-only annotations, nothing essential is missing for a correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents budgetEur, market, and compact. The description reinforces budget and market context by listing the countries and emphasizing live prices, but it does not need to explain parameters further; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific deliverable: a best-value, compatibility-checked desktop PC assembly within a budget, using live market prices. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools check_compatibility and estimate_fps because it builds the full PC rather than performing only one of those subtasks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly signals when to use this tool: when the agent needs a complete, purchasable PC configuration within a budget and a supported market. It does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling tools or state when to prefer them instead, so it misses the top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that parts are matched against the 'live catalogue', implying a current-data dependency and possibly loose name matching. It does not discuss output shape or error handling, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first sentence states the core check purpose, the second provides the only usage guidance needed. The most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a manually simple 2-parameter read-only tool, the description mostly covers what is needed. The 'live catalogue' note explains matching behavior, and the factors list sets expectations. It would be nice to describe the return value, but without an output schema the absence is not a major gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parts and market. The description adds that part names are free text and matched by the catalogue, which slightly enriches the parts parameter, but it does not clarify the market parameter's effect on compatibility. Overall it is no more than what the schema already conveys.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource (PC part compatibility), then lists concrete factors: socket, chipset, RAM type, GPU clearance, cooler height, PSU headroom, connectors. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like build_pc or estimate_fps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a brief usage hint ('Give part names as free text; they are matched against the live catalogue') but never says when to prefer this tool over build_pc or estimate_fps, nor when not to use it. The purpose implies the use case, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the output (1% lows and bottleneck component) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, data source, or edge cases. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds moderate value but is not rich in behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the core action, and includes specific output details (1% lows and bottleneck). No filler or redundancy. It earns its place efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the key output components (frame rates, 1% lows, bottleneck). It also implies a multi-game scope. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., whether it returns a list per game or a summary), nor does it mention default values for optional parameters, though these are in the schema. The description is fairly complete for the tool's purpose, but a slightly more explicit output structure would improve it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (cpu, gpu, game, market, setting, resolution) already has a clear description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only hints at 'resolution and quality preset' which matches the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Estimate') with a clear resource ('frame rates for a CPU + GPU pairing') and adds detail about games, resolution, quality, and output (1% lows and bottleneck). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_pc and check_compatibility, which focus on construction and compatibility.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for performance estimation but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when to avoid it. It gives clear context ('across popular games at a chosen resolution and quality preset') but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing. This is a minor gap given the obvious differentiation from the sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.